|
Post by TylerDeneuve on Jun 30, 2024 0:10:53 GMT
In other words... mainstream films (any film that isn't hardcore pornography) which have scenes with verified real sexual activity between actors, i.e. coitus, fellatio, and/or cunnilingus... We're all aware of some high profile examples... The question I wanted to pose to you all is this: is there ever a case where you could believe any rationale that such scenes are actually artistically necessary?Note: This thread is prompted from me learning that the sex between Mathieu Amalric and Stéphane Terpereau in the film The Story of Richard O. (about a sex addict played by Amalric) is, according to this review, unsimulated. I guess it's always a little shocking to me when I learn of a high profile actor (i.e. Chloë Sevigny, Amalric...) actually doing this...
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Jun 30, 2024 0:34:27 GMT
I'll put it this way: I can't imagine believing it necessary if I were in the filmmaker's position, but I also totally understand if a filmmaker and the actors involved believe it necessary.
Like I don't think Gaspar Noé is only being a pervert when he includes unsimulated sex in Love. However, the fact some scenes are simulated and some are not shows some of the limits of the exercise imo. Would the scenes that are unsimulated be different had they been simulated? Perhaps, but if the aesthetic and artistic effect is also achieved with the simulated scenes, why not have them all be simulated?
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jun 30, 2024 0:38:27 GMT
I'll put it this way: I can't imagine believing it necessary if I were in the filmmaker's position, but I also totally understand if a filmmaker and the actors involved believe it necessary. Like I don't think Gaspar Noé is only being a pervert when he includes unsimulated sex in Love. However, the fact some scenes are simulated and some are not shows some of the limits of the exercise imo. Would the scenes that are unsimulated be different had they been simulated? Perhaps, but if the aesthetic and artistic effect is also achieved with the simulated scenes, why not have them all be simulated? Yeah, I agree with this.
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Jun 30, 2024 0:39:01 GMT
No, honestly typically sounds like the director getting off on a trip of some kind.
Mark Rylance's reflection on that in the film Intimacy is enlightening. "It soured me on my life two months. It’s my mistake, but I felt Patrice [Chéreau] put undue pressure on me on set to do that. And at that point I didn’t have the confidence as a film actor to say no. Now I think a lot of actors that people say are difficult are actually just being sensible."
|
|
Archie
Based
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_lavender.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_lavender.png)
Eraserhead son or Inland Empire daughter?
Posts: 4,014
Likes: 4,688
Member is Online
|
Post by Archie on Jun 30, 2024 1:06:39 GMT
I'm all for it only if the directors aren't complete degenerate creeps and the actors feel safe, which sadly is rare.
|
|
|
Post by TylerDeneuve on Jun 30, 2024 1:13:03 GMT
I'm all for it only if the directors aren't complete degenerate creeps and the actors feel safe, which sadly is rare. I get it ( ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/6692321/images/VX9qBdLG_XyugpFkNIU4.gif) ), but when has it actually made a mainstream film better or more compelling? Edit: Also, mikediastavrone96 - are you aware of any actor who performed such a scene who believed it to be necessary? I mean, after the fact?
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jun 30, 2024 1:52:34 GMT
I think the simulated sex scenes in Blue is the Warmest Colour are a lot more exploitative (not to mention choreographed with dubious consent) than the use of unsimulated sex in say Nymphomaniac, just for one example.
I also think there's inherent value in provocation and taboo-skewering for its own sake in the right contexts, but there's also a line between pure shock value (Gaspar Noe IMO) and valuable shock... something like In the Realm of the Senses where the sex scenes heighten the stakes and make the film feel rawer, more intimate, more uncomfortable, and ultimately a more powerful experience.
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Jun 30, 2024 3:31:38 GMT
I also think there's inherent value in provocation and taboo-skewering for its own sake in the right contexts, but there's also a line between pure shock value (Gaspar Noe IMO) and valuable shock... something like In the Realm of the Senses where the sex scenes heighten the stakes and make the film feel rawer, more intimate, more uncomfortable, and ultimately a more powerful experience. Valuable shock worthy enough to have the lead actress basically exiled from her home country? Could the scenes truly not have been simulated and spared the real life impact on the individuals involved, something also seen with Intimacy? Afterall, we can't know the simulated version, because we only have the unsimulated version, so who is to say it truly is "more" raw, particularly since directors can make scenes rawer just by technique and talent than other directors, without needing to tell the audience "THIS WAS REAL ALL"...and in these cases they always make a big deal to tell the press as part of the hype for the film...almost to ensure that everyone notices their gimmick.
|
|
Pasquale
Full Member
Posts: 638
Likes: 292
|
Post by Pasquale on Jun 30, 2024 7:19:51 GMT
There is a subreddit (r/extramile) with mostly female related content that might help. It's NSFW.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Jun 30, 2024 13:14:35 GMT
I'm all for it only if the directors aren't complete degenerate creeps and the actors feel safe, which sadly is rare. I get it ( ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/6692321/images/VX9qBdLG_XyugpFkNIU4.gif) ), but when has it actually made a mainstream film better or more compelling? Edit: Also, mikediastavrone96 - are you aware of any actor who performed such a scene who believed it to be necessary? I mean, after the fact? I do believe Sevigny has defended Brown Bunny and stated she doesn't regret it, while obviously having conflicted feelings about the controversy that followed it. I also believe the actors from Shortbus (maybe the most successful movie to explore unsimulated sex of the few I've seen) have affirmed the artistic intentions of those scenes. For the most part, though, there aren't a ton of known actors that have done it so I don't really know what, say, the actors from Ken Park think about their experiences.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jun 30, 2024 17:05:41 GMT
Valuable shock worthy enough to have the lead actress basically exiled from her home country? Could the scenes truly not have been simulated and spared the real life impact on the individuals involved, something also seen with Intimacy?so a couple things. 1. I think it's deeply unfortunate that the film damaged Matsuda's career because her performance is revelatory. I don't know what she thought about it later, but her involvement despite the high stakes illustrates her fearlessness and makes you appreciate the performance even more. 2. Since we're dealing in hypotheticals, actresses living in misogynistic & prissy cultures receive pushback and are shamed for filming simulated sex scenes too, in fact all the time. We don't know that Matsuda wouldn't have ended up being "exiled" even if the film hadn't contained unsimulated scenes. I think any film about Sada Abe would've been controversial in Japan in 1977, but Oshima's refusal to censor himself is a reason the film is still seen and talked about today. unsimulated acts sexual or otherwise in any film are inherently more raw because they're real and not just choreographed or shot around or manipulated. Cinema at its best is a mirror held up to the human experience. Some things you obviously shouldn't show (killing animals, endangering cast and crew -- looking at you Ruggero Deodato ![:dead:](//storage.proboards.com/6692321/images/XEisjEQVcK7pQLa7iJnP.gif) ), but sex provided it's consensual and safe isn't something I ever see as having to be defended in the first place, so that's part of where our disconnect is coming from. You (and OP) seem to be asking "why" and I'm just asking "why not"? All societies have such high tolerances for war, oppression, misogyny, slavery, poverty, violence, child mortality and nativism that sex is the last thing that should be taboo yet it's often the first thing to roil sensibilities. The Rylance example is very unfortunate but all it shows to me is the importance of consent, safety and respect in filming/choreographing any sex scenes, simulated or not, because performers can be *just* as exploited filming simulated scenes. Conversely, if simulated scenes can be filmed ethically, surely unsimulated scenes can as well.
|
|
|
Post by TylerDeneuve on Jun 30, 2024 17:11:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jun 30, 2024 17:16:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Jun 30, 2024 17:22:39 GMT
Valuable shock worthy enough to have the lead actress basically exiled from her home country? Could the scenes truly not have been simulated and spared the real life impact on the individuals involved, something also seen with Intimacy?so a couple things. 1. I think it's deeply unfortunate that the film damaged Matsuda's career because her performance is revelatory. I don't know what she thought about it later, but her involvement despite the high stakes illustrates her fearlessness and makes you appreciate the performance even more. 2. Since we're dealing in hypotheticals, actresses living in misogynistic & prissy cultures receive pushback and are shamed for filming simulated sex scenes too, in fact all the time. We don't know that Matsuda wouldn't have ended up being "exiled" even if the film hadn't contained unsimulated scenes. I think any film about Sada Abe would've been controversial in Japan in 1977, but Oshima's refusal to censor himself is a reason the film is still seen and talked about today. unsimulated acts sexual or otherwise in any film are inherently more raw because they're real and not just choreographed or shot around or manipulated. Cinema at its best is a mirror held up to the human experience. Some things you obviously shouldn't show (killing animals, endangering cast and crew -- looking at you Ruggero Deodato ![:dead:](//storage.proboards.com/6692321/images/XEisjEQVcK7pQLa7iJnP.gif) ), but sex provided it's consensual and safe isn't something I ever see as having to be defended in the first place, so that's part of where our disconnect is coming from. You (and OP) seem to be asking "why" and I'm just asking "why not"? All societies have such high tolerances for war, oppression, misogyny, slavery, poverty, violence, child mortality and nativism that sex is the last thing that should be taboo yet it's often the first thing to roil sensibilities. The Rylance example is very unfortunate but all it shows to me is the importance of consent, safety and respect in filming/choreographing any sex scenes, simulated or not, because performers can be *just* as exploited filming simulated scenes. Conversely, if simulated scenes can be filmed ethically, surely unsimulated scenes can as well. So a couple things: 1. "makes you appreciate the performance even more" - Again, we didn't see her performance where she didn't do that, so I can't support that claim. 2. There is push back against simulated scenes by some, but it is far smaller backlash in general than is ever seen in these unsimulated examples. And in this instance *we can* know despite it being hypothetical, because there have been other explicit simulated sex scenes in Japanese films where the actresses weren't exiled. I'll even disagree on our presumed disconnect, I have no opposition to the filming of sex theoretically, just the substantial increase of the risk for those involved, both in terms of onset treatment and in terms of public reaction, makes seem an unnecessary risk. And it is *far* greater, based on the fact that the fairly substantial impact is noted in any instance where a known actor participated, compared to the sheer amount of simulated scenes, where there was no negative impact whatsoever. And again your overall claim that they're more "raw" again, I won't agree with, because there is no inherent anything. I've seen simulated sex acts in films far more natural and raw than in Caligula for example where the real acts were pornographic BS. They weren't more raw because they were real, in fact they might've been faker because they were real.
|
|
|
Post by TylerDeneuve on Jun 30, 2024 17:44:51 GMT
You and mikediastavrone96 might appreciate Manohla Dargis' defense of Sevigny in her NY Times review of The Brown Bunny:
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Jun 30, 2024 19:02:54 GMT
Hypothetically I think it could necessary or at least enhance the movie in some way be which is why I'd never want it banned but I can't think of a real life example where that's the case. Also not sure why you can't use prosthetics or even CGI for something like that these days.
|
|
|
Post by taranofprydain on Jul 1, 2024 0:38:51 GMT
I'll admit I was taken aback by the violent unsimulated scenes in Lust, Caution. Left me in a daze for a day or two.
|
|
|
Post by TylerDeneuve on Jul 1, 2024 1:48:15 GMT
I'll admit I was taken aback by the violent unsimulated scenes in Lust, Caution. Left me in a daze for a day or two. The sex scenes in that film are simulated, but to echo points already brought up in this thread, Tang Wei was blacklisted in Mainland China for 3 years as a direct result of her involvement in the film, simulated or not...
|
|
|
Post by PromNightCarrie on Jul 1, 2024 2:08:38 GMT
I think with the new spread of what are called "intimacy coordinators" (I believe it is something that is now becoming a standard in the post-Me Too movement world and I, for one, think it's a brilliant change) on sets in film and television, if the creative excuse is to seem more realistic, then I think that will increasingly be seen as a crock. Simulated sex scenes are becoming more realistic moving forward because they are completely mapped out in every sense by these coordinators (even down to the breathing lol) and it helps that they make things safer, less awkward, and more comfortable for the actors to perform these scenes. There are so many actors with horror stories who wish they had this. Now I dislike the idea of shame and careers being ruined over unsimulated - and it falls on actresses more than the directors, wouldn't you say? This is just my feeling on the necessity of it moving forward if a filmmaker is gunning for authenticity. I do think finniussnrub makes a point that with some films, the hype of "And they were really doing it!" is played into for the media.
|
|
|
Post by Joaquim on Jul 1, 2024 4:05:48 GMT
so a couple things. 1. I think it's deeply unfortunate that the film damaged Matsuda's career because her performance is revelatory. I don't know what she thought about it later, but her involvement despite the high stakes illustrates her fearlessness and makes you appreciate the performance even more. 2. Since we're dealing in hypotheticals, actresses living in misogynistic & prissy cultures receive pushback and are shamed for filming simulated sex scenes too, in fact all the time. We don't know that Matsuda wouldn't have ended up being "exiled" even if the film hadn't contained unsimulated scenes. I think any film about Sada Abe would've been controversial in Japan in 1977, but Oshima's refusal to censor himself is a reason the film is still seen and talked about today. unsimulated acts sexual or otherwise in any film are inherently more raw because they're real and not just choreographed or shot around or manipulated. Cinema at its best is a mirror held up to the human experience. Some things you obviously shouldn't show (killing animals, endangering cast and crew -- looking at you Ruggero Deodato ![:dead:](//storage.proboards.com/6692321/images/XEisjEQVcK7pQLa7iJnP.gif) ), but sex provided it's consensual and safe isn't something I ever see as having to be defended in the first place, so that's part of where our disconnect is coming from. You (and OP) seem to be asking "why" and I'm just asking "why not"? All societies have such high tolerances for war, oppression, misogyny, slavery, poverty, violence, child mortality and nativism that sex is the last thing that should be taboo yet it's often the first thing to roil sensibilities. The Rylance example is very unfortunate but all it shows to me is the importance of consent, safety and respect in filming/choreographing any sex scenes, simulated or not, because performers can be *just* as exploited filming simulated scenes. Conversely, if simulated scenes can be filmed ethically, surely unsimulated scenes can as well. And again your overall claim that they're more "raw" again, I won't agree with, because there is no inherent anything. I've seen simulated sex acts in films far more natural and raw than in Caligula for example where the real acts were pornographic BS. They weren't more raw because they were real, in fact they might've been faker because they were real. I agree with this point and think Caligula is a perfect example to use here. That unsimulated lesbian sex scene that’s crosscut with the simulated threesome between Caligula, his wife and his sister is so hilariously over the top it’s difficult not to laugh at it. On the other hand the simulated threesome, while also meant to be titillating and give some shock value, doesn’t come off as campy pornographic BS compared to the real sex act it’s crosscut with
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jul 1, 2024 5:34:44 GMT
2. There is push back against simulated scenes by some, but it is far smaller backlash in general than is ever seen in these unsimulated examples. And in this instance *we can* know despite it being hypothetical, because there have been other explicit simulated sex scenes in Japanese films where the actresses weren't exiled. wasn't Miloš Forman basically exiled from Czechoslovakia for poking fun at Eastern European communism in Firemen's Ball? We celebrate artists taking risks all the time even and perhaps especially when they provoke ( Battle of Algiers is another good example, Salo, etc). And yeah I do have an even greater appreciation of Matsuda's performance knowing what she was risking. As far as risk to the actors themselves, obviously it's potentially precarious especially for women. I don't disagree with you on that at all and there are a hundred ways if could be done in an exploitative way, but provided the actors give their consent and support the vision and the scenes are created safely, public outcry could not matter less to me. re: Caligula, I didn't say "raw" was always good lol. I understand raw just to mean frank. Where the tacked-on sex scenes in Caligula distract, the scenes in Realm of the Senses enhance the realism and draw you further into the story, for me anyways, but they both contain raw depictions of sex. At least in the sense that real sex is being performed and shown, but obviously in Caligula that comes with an extra helping of cheesy porno music.
|
|
chris3
Badass
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_skyblue.png)
I just ordered a slice of pumpkin pie...
Posts: 1,057
Likes: 1,055
|
Post by chris3 on Jul 1, 2024 7:27:24 GMT
I think Shortbus makes a great case for the artistic necessity of capturing real sex onscreen when the subject matter calls for it.
|
|
|
Post by ibbi on Jul 1, 2024 14:19:59 GMT
is there ever a case where you could believe any rationale that such scenes are actually artistically necessary? I mean, it's all fake, right? The emotions, the violence, the costumes, the dinosaurs. The trick is to make it look real. The only reason my prosaic mind can think of that would make it artistically necessary is if the filmmaker is too shit to make simulated sex look remotely real, so the actors go... ![](https://media.tenor.com/FUtigT3XO9EAAAAM/bill-o-reilly-well-do-it-live.gif)
|
|